February 2016
Read
Deborah Bright’s essay “of Mother Nature and Marlboro Men”
Text was written in 1985, and some of the
things Bright argues for have been achieved. The text provides a contextual
insight (particularly in relation to American Photography) and an interesting
sense of the climate from which much critical practice has emerged. Read the
essay, noting key points of interest and your personal reflections in your
learning log.
At the same time as reading this essay, I
was evaluating Viewfindings: Women Photographers: Landscape and “Environment”,
Wells, L (1995) Available Light, UK and Shifting Horizons: Women’s landscape
photography now, Wells, L, Fehily, C and Newton, K (2001) Ibtaurus, UK. This
essay, together with the two books, helped to illustrate the difference between
men’s and women’s approaches to landscape photography and understand that both
came from a different place in history with different values.
Although written in 1985, some of Bright’s
ideas behind the enquiry into the cultural meanings of landscape photography
remains in vogue today. My own observation through the internet, books and
exhibitions is that landscape is still a male dominated subject. Bright defines
the history of the culture of landscape photography as developing from
conservative images of the land to a development of a political voice – using
landscape images to alert viewers to current issues affecting the land –
whether it be mining or nuclear power. I think this has developed over the last
30 years from the new topographic movement to how we use the work now.
“European” landscape has been built up from
painters in the 17th and 18th centuries. Paintings were
commissioned by aristocratic land owners (reminds me of the podcast from Ingrid
Pollard comparing paintings by Joseph Wright and Sir Nathaniel Dance Holland
showing the owned land in the background). Dutch landscape painters started to
paint landscapes which included property ownership. The English followed the
principle and included prestige and achievements which were happening at the
time.
“Whether noble, picturesque, sublime or
mundane, the landscape image bears the imprint of its cultural pedigree. It is
a selected and constructed text, and while the formal choices of what has been
included and excluded have been the focus of most art historical criticism to
date, the historical and social significance of those choices has rarely been
addressed and even intentionally avoided.” Bright (1985)
Bright explains that in “small town
America” the middle class church and businesses are in the centre of the town
whilst the minority classes (the majority) are outsiders. These groups are
repressed and are portrayed to look repressed rather than taken for who they
are. Bright calls for landscape photographers to give careful consideration to
how the minority groups are portrayed since landscape photography should be
more than documenting personal expression and aesthetics, because it reflects
collective interests and cultural meaning. When looking at landscape
photography, the viewer should question why it was taken and who commissioned
it. The photograph becomes a historical record and so should the photographer
be truthful? Although Bright does not mention this – politics play a part in
the recording. Whose side is the photographer or media representing? Thoughts
spring to mind here of the original 1980’s Miner’s Strike (the government siding
with the police) and Jeremy Deller’s “The Battle of Orgreave” to readdress the
balance and tell the miners story.
Bright questions the masculinity of
landscape photography. As a viewer of photography, if I can engage with the
work, I don’t think it matters whether work is masculine or feminine provided
the above rules are considered. As a photography student though, it was
important for me to understand how and why women’ s landscape photography has
developed differently because it helped identify my feelings towards
exploration of the landscape on my own and still being around for my family and
working full time. So possibly in the 30 years since this essay was written,
with women landscape
photographers now presenting at exhibitions, things are
starting to change. Women are being accepted into exhibitions, for example
Helen Sear into the Venice Biennial with “The rest is smoke” (2015). I thought
this was inspiring work, especially how the context relates to the
presentation. On the other hand though, some women exhibit in women only
exhibitions such as Mistresses of light at the OXO Tower in London last year.
Although I missed this exhibition, the links to the photographers are still
available, enabling me to look at their work. I came across the work of Valda
Bailey at MOVE last year (which appears on my Exhibitions visited page). I liked
her ice work and was hoping to experiment myself this year, especially for my
Transitions assignment. It seems there was a strong feminist movement within
landscape photography which has driven the genre forwards. Certainly degree
shows at Nottingham University which I have visited a couple of years running show
female students with final exhibitions in Landscape, so I think the genre is
more accessible for women than it was.
In the development of the modern America,
parks were created to be used by the workers and immigrants, “to elevate their
aspirations and manners”. People could then identify with cultivated nature. Park
rules were created and ritualistic behavior was followed. Similarly, Capability
Brown cultivated (or tamed) the land of the wealthy even creating views for
them similar to Claude Lorraine’s paintings or creating country parks
(industrial land being reclaimed and “naturalized”) for people to enjoy their
leisure time.
Bright suggests that “photography has merchandised
landscapes for public consumption.” Channel 4 (2015) featured a series on
Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire whereby Alan Tichmarsh encouraged and helped the
Duchess of Rutland carry out Capability Brown’s proposals. Huge tasks were
undertaken such as planting several trees and creating water storage. The end
result was a different landscape but was it better? I am undecided. I felt that
by removing the dead wood the landscape would be healthier and allow new
growth. It has created better local views for the immediate users and visitors.
Hopefully the castle will attract more visitors because people will have
followed the series. This also applies in guide books, where the beauty spots
are photographed as the “must see” location, or with places such as the
National Trust as a way of showcasing what they have to offer. I think the
danger of this is that people do not look with their own eyes. With the rise of
the internet and more television channels, people can travel without leaving
their armchair. In 2014, Google maps (via trekker) produced maps of walks in
the Peak District in Derbyshire. On the other hand, the increase of the number
of selfies taken and posted on social networking sites such as Snapchat,
Facebook, Twitter etc. is just the modern day version of the stereoscopic films
for sale or postcards to buy (photographs as a talisman) except that people
have taken them themselves rather than buying them. This means that the onus
falls to the photographer to show what is really happening so Bright had reason
to be concerned with how landscape was depicted.
Cowboy films were established in the 1920’s
and depicted men in male dominated roles such as wood chopping or rodeo who
also featured in advertising campaigns selling cigarettes to presidents. Bright
argues that this masculinized the western landscape. Since 1972, “Marlboro has
been the most purchased cigarette brand in the US.” (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/the-real-marlboro-man/385447/
accessed February 2016) Prior to this smoking was seen as a feminine
occupation. Philip Morris masculinized the brand by creating the Marlboro man
in the image of a cowboy. Ironically, cowboys did not smoke tobacco, preferring
to chew it. Critics mention that perhaps Marlboro was more about being a white
American in search of a dream since more women smoked Marlboro than men. The
original Marlboro man supported the Indian way of life which the pioneer
Americans had fought to destroy. So maybe the Marlboro advert was a paradox? I
think Bright’s comment about the masculinization of the Western landscape would
have to be looked at in a historical and social context.
 |
| Laura Gilpin Enduring |
The development of straight photography
after WW1 by Paul Strand and Alfred Stieglitz borrowed forms in nature from
symbolism as an expression of the emotion of the photographer at the time of
exposure. Weston and Adams carried this on throughout their photography
producing aesthetically pleasing landscape images. Bright sees this as a
limitation because there is no intended meaning of the photograph. I think she
means that the photographs lacked context (latin con = together and text =
weave). It was Szarkowski who came up with a written set of photographic
vocabulary based on the work of Timothy O’Sullivan - one of the pioneers of
American Landscape photography in the days of the railroad. Bright mentions that
two women (Dorothea Lange and Laura Gilpin) were featured (one photograph each)
in the American Landscapes exhibition (1981) and accompanying book by
 |
| Laura Gilpin |
Szarkowski. In the Moma press release, only Dorothea Lange is mentioned (with
more than one photograph). However, I found the description interesting; “The
landscapes of Dorothea Lange and those of Alfred Stieglitz, dealing
respectively with social truths and the "secrets of creation," will
be on view. So, too, will the magnificent photographs by Ansel Adams of those
corners of the American terrain that look much the same today as they did
hundreds of years ago. Interpretive works by contemporary photographers Robert
Adams, William Clift and Frank Gohlke will conclude the chronological survey of
the American landscape. Each of the photographers in the exhibition has
attempted to define what the earth is like and has presented new discoveries
concerning the structure, the beauty and the meaning of our habitat” (https://www.moma.org/momaorg/shared/pdfs/docs/press_archives/5905/releases/MOMA_1981_0036_37.pdf?2010
accessed February 2016) Laura Gilpin was not mentioned in the Press release. I
looked up her work which showed the landscape and the Navajo people with a real
empathy and understanding. Considering her rejection by male landscape
photographers during her early career, it probably made her more determined to pursue
her own interests.
In the 1970’s the environmental concerns
gave context to exhibited photographs such as the New Topographics: Photographs
of a man altered landscape. However, by hanging them in galleries with
minimalist labels people viewed them with awe and may not have understood the
context or meaning of them. Bright is of the opinion that the photographers ““take
great pains to prevent the slightest trace of judgment or opinion from entering
their work,” (Jenkins as cited by Bright 1985) these representations (no less
than those of other landscape traditions) are charged with meanings that derive
from the personal identities and histories of the photographers and which, in
turn, are relayed to audiences with their own social and psychic
predispositions.”
Bright suggests that Robert Adams was
commissioned to take photographs of open pit mines by the mining company and
not form alliances with the miners and their families. When comparing his work
to an unknown photographer who addressed the issue of nuclear waste and living
conditions, Adams won an award because his work was less political. I think
Freemen fits in with today’s photography and has embraced the digital times.
His work has stayed current, but then he is of a different generation to Robert
Adams. I have the benefit of being able to look at the subsequent volume of
work which Freemen has produced whereas in 1985, Freemen would have been a
relatively new photographer to the field. Bright suggests that “this is how the
elite art world and its gate-keeping institutions ensure the silencing and
self-censoring seen as necessary to keep art free of “overt politics” which
does not bring results. Freemen reported that in 1991 Rocky Flats was closed
down. Maybe the question is what do we actually want the art to do? Freeman may
not have received an award for Rocky Flats, but he brought about political
change through his work.
Bright compares two works of the same
subject (a nuclear powerstation) by different photographers; John Pfahl and Lisa
Lewenz. Phahl uses a postcard style sublime/beautiful which he accepts in one
single image does not address the environmental concerns. Lewenz on the other
hand, made a calendar of images addressing the concerns of the people who lived
there. On key dates were printed the
dates of accidents. Although they are of the same subject they are not totally
the same. Bright criticizes Phahl for not giving a context to his work and
views his work as fantasy. On his website now is an artist’s statement.
|
Phahl
|
Lewenz
|
|
Gallery
|
Public display
|
|
Art Museum
|
Cheap $6 per calendar
|
|
No artist statement
|
Empathy with workers and families living there
|
|
Small audience
|
Large audience
|
|
Themed portfolio for art collectors
|
Articulates politics
|
Recalling the work of Toby Smith’s power
stations, I re-visited his website to look at his presentation. His work was
for National Geographic and his website shows a tear sheet magazine cover. This
adds context to his work.
Bright explains that “women, I think, have
a special stake in documenting zones of privacy and public spaces used
primarily by their sex”. I would agree with this, looking at the work of Laura
Gilpin or Dorothea Lange. I think women have an understanding of the space because
we are the homemakers. As she mentions later, men are the hunters and go after
the virgin wilderness to photograph. However, I think some men can document the
landscape and its people equally well such as Alec Soth.
Various arguments have been put forward
such as whether men are better at symbolism and women at natural creativity
because they are closer to nature, to whether the difference is in humanly organized
landscapes compared to natural or historical landscapes.
Bright raises the use of photographs as an
issue. What happens when the context / artists statement / gallery blurb etc.
is separated from the photograph? In this day and age, it is all too easy for
someone to wipe the meta data from the photograph and it be claimed as someone else’s
work. It seems that this has been an ongoing problem for the last 30 years.
Her summary is that “If we are to redeem
landscape photography from such a narrow, self-reflexive project, why not use
it to question the assumptions about nature and culture it has traditionally
served? Landscape is not the ideologically neutral subject many imagine it to
be. Rather, it is an historical artifact that can be viewed as a record of the
material facts of our social reality and what we have chosen to make of them.”
I think this is true and relates across either gender so although Bright has separated
men and women as being different, at the end of the day we are both working
towards a collective goal; it is just that we have different approaches.
References
All accessed February 2016
Bibliography
All accessed February 2016
Viewfindings: Women Photographers:
Landscape and “Environment”, Wells, L (1995) Available Light, UK
Shifting Horizons: Women’s landscape
photography now, Wells, L, Fehily, C and Newton, K (2001) Ibtaurus, UK.
